Oyollo Akech v Okello (Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The High Court held that counsel's negligence in arriving late for court proceedings constituted sufficient cause for the applicant's non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant demonstrated honest intention to prosecute the suit by promptly filing applications to reinstate the dismissed suit. The court set aside the dismissal order, restored the suit to file, and reinstated the interim order maintaining the status quo on the suit property despite subsequent construction of rental units.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside, suit restored to file, interim order reinstated, matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

In 1998, the applicant was allocated land at Senior Quarters in Kotido Town Council and developed a residential building. The respondent allegedly trespassed on an undeveloped portion of the land and erected a building. The applicant obtained an interim order in Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2016 stopping the respondent's activities and filed Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016 for trespass and recovery of land. On 10 October 2019, when the suit was called for hearing, neither party nor their counsel appeared. The applicant's counsel was travelling from Lira to Soroti and arrived late. The court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. The applicant filed this application on 19 December 2019 to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the interim order. The respondent contended that the suit land does not belong to the applicant and that a survey error had merged two different pieces of land.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance when Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016 was dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. Whether the court should reinstate the interim order issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2016 maintaining the status quo on the suit property.

Orders

• The order dismissing Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016 for want of prosecution is set aside.
• The suit file is restored to enable its disposal on merits subject to the law of limitation.
• The interim order issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2016 maintaining the status quo on the suit property is reinstated with the terms stated therein.
• The main suit HCCS No. 27 of 2016 should be fixed for hearing and determination on its merits within six months from the date of this ruling.
• Costs of the application to be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 18
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 23
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rule 3

Cases cited (8)

• Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1998)
• Ggolooba Godfrey and Margaret Kizito (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
• Crown Beverages v Stanbic Bank of Uganda Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0181 of 2005)
• Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobodde (Civil Application No. 5 of 1997)
• National Insurance Corporation versus Mugenyi and Company Advocates, 1978, HCB page 28
• Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virann and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
• Nakirridde V Hotel International Ltd [1987] HCB 86

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Sheikh Saleh Abdallah M. Alqasir v Haji Manisoor Ssenabulya (Miscellaneous Application No. 2979 of 2023)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.